Re: Authors Who Should Retire

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:44:18 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lwe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:r52ct39sse3ccbcoabq3m5i61b8bbpvmlc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:08:39 -0700 (PDT), veritas
>> <veritas.fla@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>The sole reason for the thread:  Established authors in decline are
>>>keeping new authors with better work from being published.
>>
>> No, they aren't.  That's not how the business works.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
>> The seventh issue of Helix is now at  http://www.helixsf.com
>
>LIAR! Why are you and your old cronies playing keepaway from the bright 
>fresh new writing talent on the scene, Lawrence?
>
>But seriously ... ****rley we need the umpteenth Jimmy Patterson and Nora 
>Roberts' novel about a trinity of pairs of women and men (of Irish /
Celtic 
>descent) finding love, and unravelling some crime and / or mystery or one
of 
>those alphabet A is for Attorney / Affidavit / ADA / Appellate novels far

>more than fresh new--untested, unmarketed, unsold--materials. Right?
>
>Okay, really seriously this time, what is the impetus for publishers to
take 
>risks on new unsold talent over reliable, proven best-selling authors?
>
>-- Ken from Chicago 
>

Apparently you never watched "Let's Make a Deal"? Proven author has
track record of selling say, 100,000 books per new title and gets a
nice five-figure advance. Predictible revenue. New author has a book
that the senior editor thinks is very hot and rumors of a movie deal
abound. New author gets low five-figures (or worse). Publisher pushes
new author to the moon and (sometimes) gets a return far exceeding the
profits stipulated in scenario #1.  

Think of the new author as "Door #3".


Cheers,

John

www.darksidepress.com